<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (4) TMI 1040 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437014</link>
    <description>Attribution of offshore supply receipts, onshore service receipts and alleged permanent-establishment profits could not stand where the factual basis was misconceived. The tribunal found that the draft and final assessment proceeded on inconsistent assumptions: the offshore contract value was treated as fully attributable despite the assessee following the cash system and receiving only part of it, and part of the onshore receipts was attributed despite the record showing that the Indian joint venture partner had offered that amount to tax and stated it alone executed the onshore contract. It held that profit attribution to a permanent establishment must be tested against global profit figures, not mechanically against gross receipts, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 1040 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437014</link>
      <description>Attribution of offshore supply receipts, onshore service receipts and alleged permanent-establishment profits could not stand where the factual basis was misconceived. The tribunal found that the draft and final assessment proceeded on inconsistent assumptions: the offshore contract value was treated as fully attributable despite the assessee following the cash system and receiving only part of it, and part of the onshore receipts was attributed despite the record showing that the Indian joint venture partner had offered that amount to tax and stated it alone executed the onshore contract. It held that profit attribution to a permanent establishment must be tested against global profit figures, not mechanically against gross receipts, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>